Support the Troops, Eh? Audience Boos Gay Soldier at GOP Debate

The audience at Thursday night’s GOP presidential debate in Orlando, Florida commemorated this week’s repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by booing Stephen Hill, a gay soldier, as he asked Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) about open service in the military. Without condemning the audience reaction, Santorum responded to Hill’s question by proclaiming that “any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military” and promising to reinstate the 1993 policy. He also characterized open service as a “special privilege”:

SANTORUM: The fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we’re going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege and removing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I think tries to inject social policy into the military and the military’s job is to do one thing — and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military, which is all volunteer, the ability to do so…and I believe this undermines that ability.

KELLY: So what would you do with soliders like Steven Hill. Now he’s out…so what would you do as president?

SANTORUM: Look, what we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now and that’s tragic. I would just say that going forward, we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president. Period. That policy would be reinstituted and as far as people in, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in conformity to what was happening in the past, which is — sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself — whether your’re heterosexual or homosexual.

President Of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Says Death Penalty Is About

Affirming The Sanctity Of Life

This week marked the execution of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis, whose case was considered by many to be deeply flawed. Davis’ execution has served as a wake-up call to the inequities and dangers of capital punishment in the United States.

Yet one influential religious leader appears to have been unphased by the global uproar over Davis’ death and critical examinations of the death penalty. Mohler argued in a Sept. 22 podcast that the death penalty is actually pro-life in a way, because it is intended to “affirm the value [and] sanctity of every single human life“:

A Southern Baptist seminary president says that according to the Bible, capital punishment is pro-life. “The death penalty is not about retribution,” Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in a podcast Sept. 22. “It is first of all about underlining the importance of every single human life.”

Mohler, who has a Ph.D. in theology, said in Genesis 9, where capital punishment is mandated for murder, “it is precisely because the taking of one human life by another means that the murderer has effectively, morally and theologically, forfeited his own right to live.” “The death penalty is intended to affirm the value [and] sanctity of every single human life, and thus by the extremity of the penalty to make that visible and apparent to all,” Mohler said.

Mohler is an influential figure in Baptist circles in the United State. As he notes on his website, he is president of the “flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world” and is a board member of the right-wing Focus on the Family. His position on the death penalty stands in stark contrast to that of many other Christian leaders. For example, the Catholic Church, which represents the largest Christian denomination in America, has been generally opposed to the practice since Pope John Paul II declared so in 1995.

Boehner Triples Possible DOMA Legal Tab To $1.5 Million

House Republican leaders have tripled the amount allocated for a legal team arguing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from $500,000 to $1.5 million of taxpayer money.

A modified contract between the General Counsel to the House of Representatives and former Solicitor General Paul Clement of Bancroft PLLC sets a cap of $750,000 which can be raised up to $1.5 million.

"It is absolutely unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is tripling the cost for his legal boondoggle to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act," Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said in a statement.

"At a time when Americans are hurting and job creation should be the top priority, it just shows how out of touch House Republicans have become that they would spend up to $1.5 million dollars to defend discrimination in our country," Hammill continued.

"The entire contracting process has lacked any semblance of transparency," the statement said. They continued:

Our letters of warning and our questions about how any of the numbers were reached and where the money would come from have gone unanswered. Now, we find that Speaker Boehner's hand-picked lawyers have exhausted the half-million dollars we were told would be the total cost and they need an additional $1 million dollars --- or 300% of the original contract, to continue the work.
This ongoing expense is a complete waste of taxpayer money. We call on the Republican Leadership to explain why they will invest in protecting discrimination and how any of this can put Americans back to work.

Richard Dawkins Event Banned by Michigan Country Club

The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, MI, cancels Center for Inquiry–Michigan event with biologist Richard Dawkins because of his atheist philosophy.

Prejudice against atheists manifested itself again when The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Michigan (outside of Detroit), cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins after learning of Dawkins’s views on religion. The event had been arranged by the Center for Inquiry–Michigan (CFI), an advocacy group for secularism and science, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

The Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.

In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, “open to the public” means “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

After learning of the owner’s last-minute refusal to allow Dawkins to speak, CFI–Michigan asked the owner to reconsider his position, but this attempt to resolve the issue amicably was met with silence. The sold-out event, scheduled for Wednesday, October 12, will now be held at a different venue.

“It’s important to understand that discrimination based on a person’s religion—or lack thereof—is legally equivalent to discriminating against a person because of his or her race,” said Jeff Seaver, executive director of CFI–Michigan. “This action by The Wyndgate illustrates the kind of bias and bigotry that nonbelievers encounter all the time. It’s exactly why organizations like CFI and the Richard Dawkins Foundation are needed: to help end the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever.”

Right-Wing Editor Brags about "Infiltrating" DC Protest March

Washington, DC saw not one but two major protest actions this weekend, and one of them, a peaceful march to the Air and Space Museum to protest an exhibit on unmanned drones, saw a confrontation with police that led to protesters getting pepper-sprayed.

Apparently, one of those "protesters" was American Spectator editor Patrick Howley.

Blogger Charlie Grapski at FireDogLake writes:

Immediately after the incident began hitting the newswires Howley published a “Breaking News” story with The American Spectator online in which he reveals that he had consciously infiltrated the group on Friday with the intent to discredit the movement. He states that “as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause — a cause that I had infiltrated the day before in order to mock and undermine in the pages of The American Spectator — and I wasn’t giving up before I had my story.”

According to Howley’s story he joined the group in its march toward the Air and Space Museum but the protesters on the march were unwilling to be confrontational. He states “they lack the nerve to confront authority. From estimates within the protest, only ten people were pepper-sprayed, and as far as I could tell I was the only one who got inside.”

Since peaceful protesters wound up getting a faceful of pepper-spray because of Howley's decision to act aggressively, Grapski argues:

It is highly likely that the events that occurred would not have taken the turn they did if it were not for Howley’s admitted adventure in an effort to discredit the Occupy movement. So before the public, the media, and officials turn their attention negatively towards the protests and the protesters there needs to be a critical eye turned on the role of the American Spectator and the role played in these events by its editorial staff. If arrests were made at this incident, and even if none were, the admissions of Howley published brazenly in the pages of his Conservative magazine and bragged about on his Facebook page should lead to an official investigation into his role and that of his employer in the events in Washington D.C. today and should be seen as at least part of the causal nexus that led to the inappropriate use of force that along with Howley negatively affected many who were innocent of any crime other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Joe Walsh Says He Had 'Verbal' Deal Not To Pay Child Support

Freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) says he didn't pay tens of thousands of dollars in child support payments to his ex-wife because he was under the impression they had an informal agreement that he'd keep the money.

"He reasonably relied on [ex-wife Laura Walsh's] representations and conduct, to his detriment," Walsh's lawyer said in a court filing, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Through his attorney, Walsh claimed he had a "verbal agreement" with his wife on child support because "Joe and his former wife were both tired of court appearances and the resulting emotional and financial impact on the family. Neither party had the financial or emotional wherewithal to continue the battle."

Ms. Walsh, who is suing the Congressman for over $100,000 in missed child support payments, sees things differently, however. Her attorney denied the claim, as well as Mr. Walsh's office's claim that the suit is "an attempt to tarnish the Congressman's reputation" timed to his emergence as a public figure. According to her attorney, she only launched the latest effort to collect the money after the then-candidate lent his campaign $34,000, indicating that he had significantly more cash than he had let on.

This is one of the "famous" members of the Tea Party, the folks that were going to "fix" the country - you know, improve it. Seems he can't fix his own life and thinks avoiding family responsibilities and then lying about it is the right thing to do.

Tea Party to Businesses: "Stop Hiring!"

Just when I think conservatives can't surprise me any more, they surprise me with another jaw-dropper. And, no, I'm not talking about the recent Republican debate — though that yielded some real stunners, both from the candidates and the studio audience.

I'm talking about the latest attempt by conservatives to (further) sabotage the economy and smother any hope of recovery. There have been a more than few. But this latest one takes the cake.

I am only posting the beginning of the article. Read the entire post at the link because there are other links you should check.

Another example of the extreme right wanting the administration to fail so that they can regain power. As I have shown many times they don't care about the country only power. Conservatives are vicious fanatics. This is more evidence.

U.S. faithful await new prophecy on ‘end of world’

NEW YORK — Five months after a media frenzy over a US preacher’s “end of the world” prophesy, his faithful were awaiting Judgment Day again Friday based on his “recalculated” prediction.

Harold Camping, the evangelist of Family Radio based in Oakland, California, caused a global stir earlier this year when he predicted doomsday would occur on May 21 — a day which came and went.

Undeterred, Camping has claimed a new analysis based on the Bible’s Book of Genesis showed the real event would in fact be on October 21.

“We are living in a most unusual time. On May 21, of 2011, mankind entered into the Day of Judgment. This ‘day’ will last for 5 months (153 days) until October 21, 2011,” he said in a message to followers.

On October 26th, the tenth anniversary of the signing of the PATRIOT Act, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) for answers about "secret interpretations" about a particular provision known as Section 215. Several senators have warned that the DOJ is using Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to support what government attorneys call a "sensitive collection program" that may be targeting large numbers of Americans that are not implicated in any national security investigations.

Ten Years After the Patriot Act, a Look at Three of the Most Dangerous Provisions Affecting Ordinary Americans.

Just what sort of powers does the PATRIOT Act grant law enforcement when it comes to surveillance and sidestepping due process? Read about three provisions of the PATRIOT Act that were sold to the American public as necessary anti-terrorism measures, but are now used in ways that infringe on ordinary citizens’ rights.

___________________________________________
9/11 gave the government support to do whatever it takes to "keep us safe". The abuses allowed by the "Patriot Act" are ongoing and serious. The harassment of OWS is another example of the curtailment of our rights as citizens to be free of unnecessary government power.

Read these articles and be aware. This is a creeping infringement on our freedom and deadly serious.

Conservative Investors Sue Over Sham Tea Party TV Network

A group of conservative investors in Tennessee is suing a California businessman for allegedly conning them into investing in Tea Party HD, a TV channel aimed at tea partiers, that they say turned out to be a scam.

Tea Party HD was founded by Bill Hemrick and Anthony Loiacono in 2010, but Hemrick and the other complainants claim that Loiacono never put in his share into the project and used the rest of the funds as his “personal bank account.” The complaint says he used the money “to pay himself, his family members and his business, Heads & Tails Inc., ‘exorbitant rates’ for the few projects Tea Party HD undertook,” according to Brandon Gee of The Tennessean.

“The alleged purpose of Tea Party HD was to be the ‘world’s first HD provider of news about the Tea Party,’” the lawsuit states. “In reality it was an investment scheme to defraud politically conservative-minded citizens who support the Tea Party mission.”